Who is responsible for council tax when a property is abandoned?

Re finance Act: The wording in AST to which tenants sign up states they are responsible for all utililities for the duration of the AST. If they choose to reside elsewhere within the timeframe of the AST, then I can't see that this abdicates them from the full responsibility for that which they have freely signed up to. I would have thought a prior AST for the time frame in question should take precident over any other residence they take on. It is after all a contract freely entered into by two parties.

@Ray,

‘ “resident”, in relation to any dwelling, means an individual who has attained the age of 18 years and has his sole or main residence in the dwelling.’
................
There is no definition of “sole or main residence” in statute law. “Owner” is either the person holding a material interest who is the freeholder
or a person holding a leasehold interest for the premises granted for a term of six months or more.

Regards, HB Welcome

@HB Welcome
Can you please confirm if you have you actually argued one of these cases with the council or taken such a case to Tribunal. If so, what arguments did you use? I am pressing this a little I know but if you have any practical advice to offer on this point please provide it as it may help many people reading this forum. If it is just your viewpoint based upon reading the legislation then that's fine, you are entitled but it does not help me or other readers fight the council.

@Lynette
If the tenancy has gone periodic, the tenant has gone but given no notice then the tenancy has not ended - it cannot end without a court order which can take months. However in this situation, convincing the council to continue treating the missing tenant as responsible is not easy. That is why I was asking HB Welcome how he achieved this as it would help out everyone else on here.

@Ray,

Apologies, I'm not trying to start an argument,!

I (wrongly) thought my reply was clear.

This key phrase is used over and over again at tribunal:

"There is no definition of “sole or main residence” in statute law. “Owner” is either the person holding a material interest who is the freeholder
or a person holding a leasehold interest for the premises granted for a term of six months or more."

I thought that answered your question.

It is not (neccessarily) my viewpoint but it has been stated repeatedly by tribunals.

Please don't take my word for it.
-Especially don't take the Councils word for it!

Read the link from my earlier post and make your own decision. They are the finest written words on the subject.

Re your specific questions;

"Can you please confirm if you have you actually argued one of these cases with the council"

Yes

"or taken such a case to Tribunal."

No

- Councils always give up before it gets that far (if you have a case).

"If so, what arguments did you use?"

It wasn't the argument above but it was very similar, -but in my own words.

Nowadays, in all dealings with the council, I shamelessly plagiarise the exact same words used by the tribunal.

But as I've said, please don't believe me, read the transcripts and make your own mind up.

"convincing the council to continue treating the missing tenant as responsible is not easy."

Very true.

But please remember, ultimately, you are not trying to convince the Council.

@HB Welcome
Thanks, your highlighted bit helps there I knew I mist be missing something.

I have another interesting variation for you. Please stick with it, I know it’s too long for a post really but it gets a bit complicated:

One of my councils (Sunderland) under the new local rules offer a 25% discount for the first 6 months empty subject to:

‘Under the new scheme, properties that are re-occupied within one month will receive 100% Council Tax Discount’

We had a situation where one of our tenants told the council they had left and advised them of a new address approx one month before his notice ended despite having not surrendered the property or removed all of his belongings. The tenant did not formally check-out of our property until the last day of his notice. The council initially issued us with a bill from the date the Tenant told them he had left however I subsequently convinced them that the tenant should be liable until he formally surrendered the property at the end of the tenancy. The property was re-tenanted 14 days after the previous surrender. I therefore (Foolishly) assumed I would be granted the 100% discount for a property re-occupied within one month. What happened is an amazing piece of slight of hand by the council. They issued a bill to me that charged us from the point the previous tenant surrendered the tenancy up to the point the new tenant moved in with no discount for the quick re-occupation. When I queried this with them, their reply was as follows:

“ Thank you for your emails received 06/07/2013 and 21/06/13. Firstly, may I apologise for the delay in replying.

We were advised that Mr X vacated the property on the 20/04/2013 and have charged him at another address as an occupier from this date. However, we were subsequently advised by yourselves that Mr X should have been liable for the Council Tax Charge up until 18/05/2013. As Mr X was being charged as an occupier at another address we could only charge him at this address for the unoccupied period from 20/04/2013 until 18/05/2013.

From the 19/05/2013 the property was put back into the name of the owners until a new tenant moved into the property on 01/06/2013.

As our records show that the property has been unoccupied from 20/04/2013 until 31/05/2013, a total of 48 days, no exemption can be applied. Mr X was charged for the 19 days from 20/04/2013 until 18/05/2013 and the owner charged for 29 days from 19/05/2013 until 31/05/2013 “

What are your thoughts on this (other than the day qty’s – they clearly cannot count)? They seem to be relying on a definition of unoccupied to suit themselves and clearly different from liability for council tax itself.

Reply to the comment left by "Ray Davison" at "16/07/2013 - 12:10":

Doesn't matter whether he is paying CT at another property.
As has been detailed on this thread the tenant is liable for CT until the end of the AST period or until the LL accepts surrender and ending of all liability for the tenant.
So the council here are wrong!!
A LL may accept surrender but that does not end CT liability if the LL decrees so.
Obviously a LL will try to source a replacement tenant but that doesn't always happen.
Tenants must realise that they have liabilities and if they wish to end contracts early there are penalties like having to pay CT for a property they are no longer resident in.until a LL sources a new tenant.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Barrett" at "16/07/2013 - 15:42":

Unfortunately not according to the law, which holds more authority than any tenancy agreement!
These circs are virtually the same as my recent case, except the council deducted their one months allowance from the point the tenant moved all furnishings out after which I then picked up the tab.

Reply to the comment left by "Paul Barrett" at "16/07/2013 - 15:42":

Hi Paul,
Thanks for contribution but if the issue were that easy - I said it was complicated!

Read again, slowly and maybe a few times. The council did charge the tenant for the council tax to the end of the tenancy. My beef here is the council still considered the property unoccupied even though they were charging the tenant council tax so did not allow the early re-occupation discount.

The issue is that the council accept that he is liable to pay but do not accept that he was occupying the property. As I said above, it just seems like slight of hand to manipulate the situation to avoid giving the discount. Using the terms in the legislation it seems he was 'resident' but did not 'occupy'.

By the way the tenant was spot on. A long term, hassle free tenant who gave notice properly and paid up to the end. Even left the property better than he got it. A bit of a change from most threads on here!

Yep clearly localism is causing loads of problems with CT.
Councils are now free to make up their own schemes and change it at a whim.
I haven't heard anymore about councils who charge business rates for rubbish removal for HMO's!!!!!!!
How a LL is supposed to keep up with all these changes; I'll never know.
such changes can completely change the business dynamic and that means LL can invest in confidence if the rules are changed at a whim.
Your lot seem to have managed to blind LL with words to weasel council tax.
Until LL have to check documents for tenants I find that i have tenants who only sty for a month of so and then disappear; i then source a tenant who stays along time.............funny that!!!
In the past I would struggle to source tenants and used to have 2 months voids but now I can source some east european tenant with a wierd name effectively instantly.
they always seem to leave after a month or so!!
I must be a bad LL!!?

Reply to the comment left by "DC " at "16/07/2013 - 15:54":

Update on my own similar case.

My council have now removed the tenants exemption even though I have been honest and stated that I cannot prove that the house was emptied of all furnishings when the tenant left (before the agreement end date) and they have now charged the tenant till the actual date their tenancy ended and given me the benefit of the exemption from that date till when the next tenant moved in.

This was all done by making two phone calls and explaining politely what the situation was and asking to give the landlord the benefit of the doubt until the previous tenant wishes to prove otherwise. So this situation may change if that tenant appeals, however I feel in the circumstances this council have been fair and realistic.
(I would like to think that my own council would act in the same way but this particular property comes under the Peterborough City Council for info.)